Wage Garnishment for Healthcare? Yikes!

I recently went to conference on health care possibilities for America. The Australian system was brought up as the most feasible by all the experts on the panel.

0 Replies

I'm glad to see that you're involved, Green Witch.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

I'm glad to see that you're involved, Green Witch.

Very involved. It's my personal Holy Grail.

0 Replies

I'd like to add that Clinton's camp said that garnishment was an option on 12/1/07. This isn't news.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I'd like to add that Clinton's camp said that garnishment was an option on 12/1/07. This isn't news.

No, but could be that just more people saw her talking about it on TV Sunday morning. George Stephanopolous was giving her a hard time about it.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

I'd like to add that Clinton's camp said that garnishment was an option on 12/1/07. This isn't news.

Got a lilnk to that?

I just find the claim suspicious since John Edwards gave an interview on 12/3/2007 where he outlined his plan and attacked Clinton for failing to say how she'd enforce her mandate.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

maporsche wrote:
I'd like to add that Clinton's camp said that garnishment was an option on 12/1/07. This isn't news.

Got a lilnk to that?

I just find the claim suspicious since John Edwards gave an interview on 12/3/2007 where he outlined his plan and attacked Clinton for failing to say how she'd enforce her mandate.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/24/18664.html

Democratic Presidential Candidate Clinton Would Consider Garnishing Wages To Enforce Health Insurance Mandate, Advisers Say

Policy advisers for Clinton on Saturday said that she would consider a proposal to garnish the wages of some U.S. residents who can afford health insurance but do not obtain coverage, the Long Island Newsday reports. Under her health care proposal, Clinton would require all residents to obtain health insurance, with subsidized and no-cost coverage provided to those who qualify. Neera Tanden, a policy adviser for Clinton, in a conference call with reporters said that Clinton would consider a proposal to have employers "automatically enroll employees" in health insurance and withhold "parts of their salaries to pay for it." According to Tanden, "these are reasonable steps to enforce a mandate" (Thrush, Long Island Newsday, 12/1).

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

fishin wrote:
maporsche wrote:
I'd like to add that Clinton's camp said that garnishment was an option on 12/1/07. This isn't news.

Got a lilnk to that?

I just find the claim suspicious since John Edwards gave an interview on 12/3/2007 where he outlined his plan and attacked Clinton for failing to say how she'd enforce her mandate.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/24/18664.html

Democratic Presidential Candidate Clinton Would Consider Garnishing Wages To Enforce Health Insurance Mandate, Advisers Say

Policy advisers for Clinton on Saturday said that she would consider a proposal to garnish the wages of some U.S. residents who can afford health insurance but do not obtain coverage, the Long Island Newsday reports. Under her health care proposal, Clinton would require all residents to obtain health insurance, with subsidized and no-cost coverage provided to those who qualify. Neera Tanden, a policy adviser for Clinton, in a conference call with reporters said that Clinton would consider a proposal to have employers "automatically enroll employees" in health insurance and withhold "parts of their salaries to pay for it." According to Tanden, "these are reasonable steps to enforce a mandate" (Thrush, Long Island Newsday, 12/1).

Perhaps the difference here is that the word "garnish" is only used by the reporter. The staffer he interviewed mentions withholding from paychecks but doesn't use "garnish" (which is a bit more loaded) in the interview.

That is in comparison to the word coming directly from Hillary's mouth.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Perhaps the difference here is that the word "garnish" is only used by the reporter. The staffer he interviewed mentions withholding from paychecks but doesn't use "garnish" (which is a bit more loaded) in the interview.

That is in comparison to the word coming directly from Hillary's mouth.

The fact that it is a loaded word is the precise reason not to use it. No politician would call witholding taxes a 'garnishment' (except Ron Paul maybe).

Despite the words not coming from her mouth directly. It was obviously already mentioned as an option.

0 Replies

map don't you know anything said by or about Hillary is a lie unless it's duragtory?

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

dadpad wrote:
Quote:
Medicare is the scheme that gives Australian residents access to health care.

To help fund the scheme, resident taxpayers are subject to a Medicare levy.

Normally, we calculate your Medicare levy at the rate of 1.5% of your taxable income. A variation to this calculation may occur in certain circumstances.

Generally, tax offsets do not reduce your Medicare levy. However, if you have excess refundable tax offsets, we use them to reduce your tax, including your Medicare levy

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm

Quote:
Private health insurance rebate

The private health insurance rebate is worked out as a percentage of the premium paid to a registered health fund for appropriate private health insurance cover. The percentage of rebate you may be entitled to claim is determined by the age of the oldest person covered by the policy (see How the rebate works). The rebate is not affected by your level of income.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/14882.htm

Comment:

Medicare as I know it gives each Australian resident access to basic levels of health care.
If you want better levels or more care you pay private health insurance and receive a rebate on the premium paid.

Show me why this cannot work in the US.

It is possible that it could work - but it hasn't been proposed as a solution by anyone here as of yet.

I find it interesting to note though that you pay 1.5% of taxable income for Medicare and it covers everyone whereas we pay 2.9% of gross earnings (split 50/50 between employee and employer) right now and it only covers ~12% of our population.

Hasnt been proposed?
Forgive me fishin isn't that exactly what Hillary is proposing? Oz system taxes a contribution from all and rebate to those who do purchase private health insurance.

Hillary proposes to tax those who don't have private health insurance. Same difference in the end. I think clintons proposal would be difficult to police. good governemnt principals say get the money first then give a bit back if you have to.

Australias Health system is not only supported by the medicare levy. Funding for hospitals is also drawn from gambling tax revenue, sales taxes (GST/VAT type taxes) and indeed general income tax. Our system pretty much redistributes wealth by, all taxes being put in a pot together and doled out by federal government as required/seen fit.

Thats a very simplistic view so don't get picky.

Any how you guys can decide for yourselves what system suits best without interference from me. I just wanted to throw it up for consideration.

0 Replies

Why am I not surprised nobody answered my question?

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

Hasnt been proposed?
Forgive me fishin isn't that exactly what Hillary is proposing? Oz system taxes a contribution from all and rebate to those who do purchase private health insurance.

What Hillary is proposing isn't the same sort of system that you have down under - at least not from what I've read of your system and the previous discussion I had with Wilso about it.

Your system provides a basic coverage for everyone and then you can buy private insurance on top of it. Your private insuarnce is what we would call a "secondary" insurance policy. And none of it it dependent upon your employer or employment status. (Which is my biggest issue with any Universial system)

Hillary's system is an either/or system. Either you have the State provided system or you have private insurance but you don't have both - and she maintains the employer dependency that the current system we have relies on.

0 Replies

Did you hear the latest: Harry and Louise were told they can't be insured because of a preexisting condition.

0 Replies

Fishin you are correct on your assesment of our health system.

The service provider bills the government for a portion of the amount owed and you pay the rest. If you have private health insurance you can then claim the rest from your insurer. Note that often the full amount of a service is still not covered.

Private Insurance companies pay a set amount depending on the service provided. This is called the scheduled fee. Should your service provider choose to charge more than the scheduled fee there is little you can do about it.

0 Replies

OK, Australia might like what they've got, and since they follow us a lot, they think it's time we imitate them. Coming from a country full of sheep I'm not surprised. But let's be honest, it's a big, open, happy, guileless country, not a very good model for our own.

I had to do my homework for this since I likes my freedom no matter what kind of fruity theme park I could live in without it. Anyway, in Great Britain, a much better model for a mature global power and a few steps ahead in population density, and limited resources, hundreds of thousands wait at any given time, surgery is less accessible, and cancer survival rates are lower. Canada? somewhere in between Australia and Britain in terms of success, but if asked I could name documented instances of them sending esteemed comrades here for treatment. Free drugs, and physical therapy, if someone dies without that stuff it's their own fault, what I'm worried about having or not having is a competent oncologist with top technology if I need one.

I mean, do these countries think to appreciate that we improve the industry by subjecting it to our free market? Nah, they just want to be imitated by the big dog for once. Maybe there's a little jealousy too.

But that's beside the point. Discussing their success or lack thereof and whether it would or wouldn't work for us is one thing. But we've got right now people doing their damnedest to get Socialized Medicine in the US and what the daddy of them all actually did come up with is nightmarish. Not taxes, wage garnishment for non-participants. Might not mean much to someone who thinks they and their stuff should be subject to seizure at the whims of the government (in fairness the governments in question are smaller and crappier than ours) but here in America they only come getcha if you do something wrong, and are verified to have done so by due process. What, I ask, is wrong with doing without something? And it doesn't end there, this is short a short one:

Free... But

Yeah, I know it's paranoid right wing lunacy, but this chronic-illness under socialized medicine is verifiable, has a basis in economics, behavioral science, medicine, and the fact that civil servants tend to suck at their jobs. We could have known it would go that way since Orwell's '1984' and if the government of today doesn't want to tell you what to do wait until you're sick, addicted to its services, and used to being told when and how you get what you need.

0 Replies

My daughter works in a top international tourist destination. She tells me the biggest assholes, the rudest, most self important, self absorbed guests they get are the American tourists.

Hanno I really couldnt give a FAT RATS CLACKER what you end up doing. I threw the Aust system into the ring as an example. If it doesnt suit you thats fine but there was no need to be rude and insulting.

Oh sorry I forgot you're an American being rude and insulting is what Americans do.

What is a tax if its not wage garnishment.

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

Oh sorry I forgot you're an American being rude and insulting is what Americans do.

Is this generalized description supposed to be less rude than those of Hanno?

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

My daughter works in a top international tourist destination. She tells me the biggest ****, the rudest, most self important, self absorbed guests they get are the American tourists.

Have her try working in America for awhile. That might give her a different perspective on things.

0 Replies

flyboy804 wrote:

dadpad wrote:

Oh sorry I forgot you're an American being rude and insulting is what Americans do.

Is this generalized description supposed to be less rude than those of Hanno?

I forgot to write ignorant, stupid, and insular.

Yes you are right it is a generalization. Generally the Americans I have met are all of the above. When America stops being isolated and insular you too will realise this is not just my view its a view that the world at large holds. A view that has been fed by morons with comments by Americans such as Hanno's.

I wont be returning to this thread so don't bother replying to me.

0 Replies

Wage Garnishment for Healthcare? Yikes!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know